AAPL vs ZETA Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads ZETA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 54. The clearest difference is quality, while ZETA has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AAPL and ZETA?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Zeta Global Holdings Corp.
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ZETA on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Zeta Global Holdings Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over ZETA, 62 versus 54 as of Oct 31, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while ZETA holds the stronger value profile. AAPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ZETA. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apple Inc. and Zeta Global Holdings Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AAPL and ZETA against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality80 vs 54AAPL +26
- Risk Resilience69 vs 54AAPL +15
- Value38 vs 47ZETA +9
- Momentum65 vs 63Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; ZETA keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
AAPL's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and ZETA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ZETA (Zeta Global Holdings Corp.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 40.7% against 13.6%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
AAPLAAPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZETAZETA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZETAZETA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
ZETAZETA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AAPL, analyst targets favor ZETA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AAPL | ZETA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | +16.8% | ZETA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +45.7% | +76.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AAPL | 62 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | ZETAon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs 11.7%; gross margin 48.7% vs 61.3%; operating margin 33.2% vs 1.9% — ZETA takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZETA | Value 38 vs 47 |
| Technicals | ZETA | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day 16.3% vs 49.3% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 69 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | ZETA | Target upside -1.7% vs 16.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and ZETA and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on AAPL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +8
- 62 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +11
- 65 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +2
- 60 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +4
- 61 vs 57
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when AAPL moved ahead of ZETA.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AAPL
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only ZETA
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.54%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
AAPL leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.23%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -4.8%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ZETA closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2ZETA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
ZETA leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | ZETA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 11.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 161.6% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 61.3% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 1.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | -0.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.21 |
Performance
ZETA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | ZETA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.2% | 6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | 56.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.3% | 87.8% |
| Year to date | 26.5% | 64.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.8% | 78% |
Technicals
ZETA has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | ZETA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.7 | 52.2 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 33.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.3% | 49.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.6% | 40.7% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | ZETA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.56 | 2.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 1.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 2.23 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -40.4% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 24% | 65.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or ZETA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against ZETA's 54. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. ZETA is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is AAPL or ZETA the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AAPL over ZETA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Quality by 26 points; AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; ZETA leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or ZETA?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for AAPL and +16.8% for ZETA, so the Street currently favors ZETA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AAPL. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AAPL or ZETA?
ZETA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZETA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, AAPL or ZETA?
ZETA on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, AAPL or ZETA?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, AAPL or ZETA?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 15 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AAPL more profitable than ZETA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 61.3%; operating margin 33.2% vs 1.9%; ttm roe 137.2% vs -0.3%. Each name leads on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is AAPL's lead over ZETA getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when AAPL moved ahead of ZETA.
What would change the AAPL vs ZETA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ZETA closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; ZETA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AAPL and ZETA?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ZETA: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZETA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and ZETA with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.